Gugny Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 The National Driver Registry bit me in the ass earlier this year when I went to get my motorcycle permit. Had to pay a fine from a NJ ticket I got in 1993. Anyway, just appearing will likely get it reduced to a on-moving violation. You still get fined with a court fee, but it's no point on your license/no impact on your insurance premium. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) Sounds to me like you got busted fair and square (and know it), but decided to MAKE a sham out of the court process with sleight of hand and irrelevant questions to try to confuse the witness and judge. Those tactics are usually reserved of low-life, sleaze-ball attorneys. So, congrats on "winning". I usually find that the tact of not speeding seems to keep me out of court, though. No. He shot the wrong car (opposite direction, moderate traffic... I was doing the speed limit) and I proved that in court. I was the easiest one to catch because I had to make a left before the border. Human nature... Pick the easiest target. You have a right to face your accuser and cross examine them. It wasn't irrelevant to ask those questions. I was building a case that he his memory was not credible. He couldn't answer if I had a passenger in my car... How does he know he was going the speed limit and who he got? He couldn't even remember the color of my car... Why is that irrelevant? Edited September 11, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) That's why when pulled over, you make as little of a fuss as possible... Lay low, just ask him if he can cut you warning (if you want) and then just shut up and take the ticket... It is their playground. Fight it in court, you have that right. Make the cost of doing business expensive for them! Red light cameras are bigger a sham because it has nothing to do (in Illinois) with driving... Redlight violations get mailed to the registered owner for their violating the town ordinance. It is about violatinng the municipality's ordinance... Like walking your dog w/out a leash... IF you read the Illinois law... They CAN'T tack on court fees... It is a flat 100 dollars. People's only hope is to clog up the court system and fight every ticket... That raises the cost of doing business for the town and the custodian of the camera. Why make the cost of doing business easy on them? They will just put up more camera's w/their profit. Right on reds without a full stop are lock tight... Same with no right on reds... BUT left on reds are beatable... My wife got one (I was liable because the vehicle is registered in my name) and her nose of the car was clearly over the line... They threw it out! My guess is that they review the questionable ones and just mail them out in hopes of intimidating the person... If they are gonna draw a line, then they have to live by it too! Game of inches now! Edited September 11, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 No. He shot the wrong car (opposite direction, moderate traffic... I was doing the speed limit) and I proved that in court. I was the easiest one to catch because I had to make a left before the border. Human nature... Pick the easiest target. You have a right to face your accuser and cross examine them. It wasn't irrelevant to ask those questions. I was building a case that he his memory was not credible. He couldn't answer if I had a passenger in my car... How does he know he was going the speed limit and who he got? He couldn't even remember the color of my car... Why is that irrelevant? Building a case on his memory? All he has to do is remember which car it was he clocked speeding 30 seconds before and write all the info down on the ticket. I presume he wrote the color of your car on the ticket. So, you are actually building your case on whether the officer can read? You are aware that the officer can look at the ticket, his notes, and whatever reports he generated in relation to the incident right? Contrary to what you said earlier, that is not hearsay. Hearsay would be Officer A testifying to what Officer B told him (and would probably still be allowed as a fellow officer exception to the hearsay objection). What does a passenger have to do with whether or not you were speeding? Exactly - nothing. Its irrelevant, and I am highly skeptical that the judge bought it. But, its your story so you tell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Should have told him; "When I came back, Mary Jo and the car were gone!" Hey, It worked before in Mass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) Building a case on his memory? All he has to do is remember which car it was he clocked speeding 30 seconds before and write all the info down on the ticket. I presume he wrote the color of your car on the ticket. So, you are actually building your case on whether the officer can read? You are aware that the officer can look at the ticket, his notes, and whatever reports he generated in relation to the incident right? Contrary to what you said earlier, that is not hearsay. Hearsay would be Officer A testifying to what Officer B told him (and would probably still be allowed as a fellow officer exception to the hearsay objection). What does a passenger have to do with whether or not you were speeding? Exactly - nothing. Its irrelevant, and I am highly skeptical that the judge bought it. But, its your story so you tell it. It is a sham if the judge is just going to side w/the state because they are the state. Is that what you are trying to say sig? On a case like this, cop going the opposite way... I found it pretty easy to defend. Afterall, he shot the wrong car. The car ahead of me was speeding, I was last in line. I made a left before the border. He picked the easy way out. He could have just done the right thing and kept going... Yet, he was gonna be a d*ck and "get someone." Nothing better to do @ 0930 in the morning... Lonely county sheriff on day shift. He shot the wrong car, and was making things up. That I proved. One is innocent until proven guilty. What more do I have to say? He couldn't recall anything about the incident from memory and then in the end crossed himself and was caught lying when I objected to him saying he shot the radar from behind. Originally, the argument was he got me while going in the opposite direction! The judge immediately tossed it becuase he knew it could get embarrassing for the cop! I am not sure of the crib notes angle, but never had to object to it. Yeah, maybe I got lucky and got a dumb cop... But most don't go into law enforcement because they have better grades in rocket surgery... ;-) Traffic court is a sham because it happens like this all the time except the state gets the accused to fold. Getting the accused in and out to create a revenue stream... It, most of the time has nothing to do about public safety or whatever they want to justify the over-officious attitude about. I have no doubt human nature plays a part with most officers. They pick the easiest target most of the time and make a flimsy case stick. Who would you rather go after? A guy that is gonna give you trouble or one that is gonna lay down. Same with the red light camera... Make the party pay/fold as easily as possible. To the original poster: Remember, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. You have a right to face your accuser. If you have proof and can prove your case, then fight... BUT you also gotta consider the "cost" of doing business.. You aren't going to fight a 200 dollar ticket and spend 300. I wish they would just jack up all tickets to some unGodly amount, then people WOULD have to fight their tickets! Maybe it is getting that way? Seems that way with the court fees in my case. Fine for others who pleaded guilty was being reduced by 90% while court fees being tacked on made the original ticket double! That too me is a sham. That practice intimidates people to exercise their right to due process. Funny, because it had the opposite effect on me. Made me dig in and defend my case deeper! Remember, like the cop gaking the easy way out, human nature has people to the easiest thing possible! Edited September 11, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I thought getting a ticket in Mass meant he got a lot of tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 How does one get a ticket in mass? Failure to yield to the elderly in the communion line? Reckless use of the confessional? Failure to raise the knee rail after standing? I know the church is going through some tough times, but giving out tickets in mass is just not the way to go about improving things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I thought getting a ticket in Mass meant he got a lot of tickets. LoL.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDD Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) All the police cars are equipped with cameras now. If he says he clocked you at 75 he's probably got some type of digital evidence. Here in florida there's a million and one "ticket clinics" where you basically hire an attorney to represent you for $99 and the end result is adjudication withheld, you pay $75 in court costs and have to go to driving school but no points are assigned. If you just pay the fine you get points on your lisence which will affect your insurance premiums. Always do what you can to keep points off your licsence Edited September 11, 2013 by DDD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 All the police cars are equipped with cameras now. If he says he clocked you at 75 he's probably got some type of digital evidence. Here in florida there's a million and one "ticket clinics" where you basically hire an attorney to represent you for $99 and the end result is adjudication withheld, you pay $75 in court costs and have to go to driving school but no points are assigned. If you just pay the fine you get points on your lisence which will affect your insurance premiums. Always do what you can to keep points off your licsence Good point... If the ticket is fought, the state should submit that as evidence. I would expect this evidence to start showing up more and more in court... Would have made my case more of a slam dunk in my favor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 It is a sham if the judge is just going to side w/the state because they are the state. Is that what you are trying to say sig? No, I'm saying its a sham because of the sleazeball attorneys and the tricks they play to take advantage of legal loopholes. Traffic court, or even criminal court, is not about finding out the truth. It's about who can pull the most tricks out of their sleeve to manipulate the system. But, hey, in the end of your story you are happy. The cop is happy (cuz he made about 125 bucks in OT pay), and the judge obviously didnt give a d@mn. Win / win / win, I suppose right? The only losers are the law abiding citizens who have to put up with repeat offenders cuz they know how to manipulate the system. Not saying you are one, because in your story you were an innocent victim of a cop who couldn't work a RADAR unit - of which I have yet to personally meet. A moderately trained monkey can work those things and be right 99% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) No, I'm saying its a sham because of the sleazeball attorneys and the tricks they play to take advantage of legal loopholes. Traffic court, or even criminal court, is not about finding out the truth. It's about who can pull the most tricks out of their sleeve to manipulate the system. But, hey, in the end of your story you are happy. The cop is happy (cuz he made about 125 bucks in OT pay), and the judge obviously didnt give a d@mn. Win / win / win, I suppose right? The only losers are the law abiding citizens who have to put up with repeat offenders cuz they know how to manipulate the system. Not saying you are one, because in your story you were an innocent victim of a cop who couldn't work a RADAR unit - of which I have yet to personally meet. A moderately trained monkey can work those things and be right 99% of the time. I had no lawyer... That would have priced me out. Just spreading the word to people that YOU can do this if you do it right. People are innocent in this country till proven guilty. Make 'em prove it. The game is stacked w/court fees. It would be great if people could tack on their costs... Anyway... I get it, you are saying that cops are right 99% of the time. I beg to differ, I betcha many take the sloppy/easy way more times than not and it (the system) fries innocent people w/intimidation more times than you want to admit. It is win for them, afterall, more they write... More OT. That ain't right. Anway... I have a family budget to protect and not get extorted by a cop that wasn't right. I take the OP is like that too? Edited September 11, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 99% of the time? No. Cops are people too. We aren't perfect. I know of some who fall way below the perfection Mendoza line. My point is that there are ways of proving your innocence without making court a sham by using tricks, gimmicks, and confusion. I guess I am ranting against that side of our broken system - not you personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) 99% of the time? No. Cops are people too. We aren't perfect. I know of some who fall way below the perfection Mendoza line. My point is that there are ways of proving your innocence without making court a sham by using tricks, gimmicks, and confusion. I guess I am ranting against that side of our broken system - not you personally. Traffic court is already a sham. By doing what I did, I am keeping it honest. What is wrong with attacking your accuser's credibility? Because they are a cop? They write 100's of tickets a month! They should have their story straight or write less. The accused has hopefully one ticket to remember. This should be a slam dunk everytime. These aren't gimmicks, or tricks. Yes, he was confused or got confused... That is his problem. I am not even a lawyer... Imagine what a good one would do? Probably why OTR truckers retain legal services in various states they travel? Edited September 12, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts